Jita Park Speakers Corner

And those speeches are the best ones to hear. I always manage to look forward to the sotg speeches. I'm just hoping that TEST has a speaker that will do something similar.

Fixing the broken sov system that made null a no-go for everyone but the established actors; fixing the broken tech situation, which broke the game for everyone; cleaning up after Incarna and delivering stuff that everyone wanted.

So yeah, having representatives that look at the bigger picture is quite important. Where they're from is much less so.

It's by far the least exploitable voting system there is, due to its simplicity. The actual problem is that it doesn't match what it's being used for, since voting power means nothing in a non-decision-making context. The other problem is that some people don't care about voting but care a lot about complaining about how they didn't vote. STV is the proposed CD-FPTP (because calling it CD-STV is a gutbustingly bad joke since it does the exact opposite of STV) is even more exploitable, but only because the small size of the CSM and the lack of constituencies.

The problem with the proposal is that it does the exact same thing as the current system — it wastes votes — but it's much worse than the current system because the votes wasted are the ones that represent a larger consensus, rather than the ones that represent pointless minority fringe votes. The other problem, if course, is that it's incorrectly named since it's not a STV system.

So no, the current system being the least exploitable of the options is not a good reason to reform the voting system.

So now you're against the proposal, I take it, in spite of being for it before?

B-b-b-but bloc votes andandandand ((((((

Still haven't seen a reason justifying disenfranchising voters. C'mon girls, knuckle up and come up with something. Even our Republicans have the stones to claim that they do what they do to combat voter fraud. Voter fraud doesn't happen, but that's their excuse!




Also I find it amusing that Trebor thinks that Mittani was "concerned" about STV voting allowing a bloc to dominate the voting. If you think he was concerned you're either willfully misinterpreting the statement, or are simply ignorant.

I am somewhat annoyed by the sparse CSM participation in this thread. I'd have thought a topic that touches on the voting process of the CSM -- the foundation of their legitimization -- would have warranted more than one post a day, especially since all of the hard questions have been carefully avoided. Instead we get some snarky answers brushing off concerns ("If I really wanted to disenfranchise some people, I'd suggest a literacy test").

I'll be honest I've never really been a huge fan of the CSM and it's bemusing to me that I'm going to comment here, but given the frankly astonishing cynicism or stupidity of this idea (I'm not sure which) I feel compelled.

The CSM has many people trapped in the logical fallacy that the CSM is a constituency based body: it's not. Because when I vote for someone in the real world typically they have a constituency. If I vote for my local politician that person is courting my vote as a constituency so generally keeps the majority view in mind when in office. If they don't someone else appeals to the same constituency and wins people over to vote for them. That's what makes representative democracy work.

CSM voting seems to be on tribal grounds. I vote for you for screw guy A or because they are in alliance B. They are only called 'null sec' members (for example) after they are voting in. There isn't a formal null sec position on the CSM, as there isn't a low sec, high sec, wormhole, PvE, etc. A 'null sec' CSM member isn't representing null sec in general, they are representing their little corner of it and that play style.

So my first question is:

Why aren't the CSM suggesting creating positions based on actual constituencies?

Why not have a CSM made up for formal null sec, high sec etc positions that the player base vote for? If you want the players game play styles to be represented build the CSM around the play styles. I guess because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Here are my criticisms of this proposal:

1. I'm willing to bet if EN24 listed 10 things in a poll on their site that the CSM urgently had to address voting reform would be last, behind the lack of choices of sock on the store. I'm sure lots of people look at this and scratch their head: how about focusing on the game and not concocting ways to make the CSM better for the CSM?

2. You remove the relationship between my vote and who I vote for because they can give it to someone else.

3. The bizzare notion that an automated system where I rank my candidate preference is LESS efficient than some manual vote distribution base on blog and forum posts is obviously wrong.

4. Last, but not least, you aren't doing away with 'the block' you're creating a system where the CSM members form blocks to make sure their chums get on. You take that power off the players and give it to the CSM.

Really, if you want the CSM to be representative of the various play styles in EVE align the CSM to those play styles formally. Create positions for high, low and null sec, for industry and wormwholes, for faction warfare and PVE, etc. Then you'll have a representative player advocacy with people there that represent large chunks of that play style.

The fact you've gone out of your way not to do this but create a convoluted system in which the CSM can determine it's own composition smells of a disingenuous attempt to make sure the only thing that changes is that you get to pick who is on the next CSM is.

Given the CSM doesn't seem to doing that much I'm not sure it matters anyway. All I know is if you bring this system in I'm not even going to bother voting in it.

Where's some evidence to back this statement up? You just thinking it, or saying it, is not PERSUASIVE at all.

Trebor wants more limp-wristed candidates. More Kelduums. More Isslers. More Meissas. Because these people are so meek, that they listen to Trebor. They look up to Trebor. The Mittani never gave Trebor the time of day, and Trebor definitely does not want more Mittani's on the CSM to work with.

This is just Trebor's yearly make-work project. He needs to step away from each CSM feeling as though he contributed something unique. Last year it was his crowd-sourced voting thing. This year it is voting reform.

I don't think, for a second, that Hans' "it was squarely trebor's idea!" backpedalling has any root in reality, this reeks more of something the entire CSM has come up with. Just look at the few CSM rep posts in here, all of them have been in defense of the idea (except Hans, which turned his coat to suit the way the wind blew vOv), and Seleene has even tweeted about it, saying "I consider it a first stab at things. Do you think it should remain as is? Plenty of time for ~change~.", "It’s good, right! Let me know if you spot an ~less mad~ post with some actual ideas in it. :) " and "Where are all the other good ideas or proposals tho? the whole point is to see where the community stands on this. "

Yeah, no, this was CSM-wide.

And here's an idea: resign.